Unathi Mantashe v Minister of Police

The plaintiff was a student at Ntombozuko FET College. On or about 8 March 2016, during a period of student protests at the College, police were summoned to the premises. The plaintiff testified that while chatting with other students in the foyer, she heard a scream and saw students dispersing. A police officer (Sergeant Nqaba Vuke) advanced towards her, grabbed her, and assaulted her with a baton. The assault continued even after she fell to the ground, until other male students intervened. She went home with a swollen arm and the next day attended Madwaleni Hospital where she was diagnosed with soft tissue injury and bruises (ecchymosis). The defendant denied the assault, asserting that its members intervened when the plaintiff refused to vacate the premises after a physical altercation with security guards.

• Whether the plaintiff proved on a balance of probabilities that she was assaulted by a member of SAPS
• Whether the defendant was vicariously liable for the alleged assault
• The appropriate quantum of damages for wrongful assault

1. Judgment granted in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant. 2. The defendant ordered to pay R80,000 (Eighty Thousand Rand) for wrongful assault, with interest from 14 days after the date of judgment to the date of payment. 3. The defendant to pay costs on scale A as contemplated under Rule 67A read with Rule 69 of the Uniform Rules of Court.

The state is vicariously liable for unlawful assaults committed by police officers acting within the course and scope of their employment. Where there are two mutually destructive versions in a civil case, the plaintiff succeeds if the court is satisfied on a preponderance of probabilities that the plaintiff's version is true and acceptable and the defendant's version is false or mistaken. In assessing a single witness's evidence, the court must weigh the evidence, consider its merits and demerits, and decide whether it is trustworthy despite any shortcomings. Police officers have a constitutional duty under section 7(2) to respect, protect, promote and fulfill the rights in the Bill of Rights, including the right to be free from violence and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under section 12 of the Constitution.

The court observed that in a democratic state like South Africa, protests that create violence between students and police should be a remnant of the past. A culture of tolerance, constructive engagement or dialogue and conflict management is significant in promoting a peaceful and stable academic environment. The court also noted that while comparable cases provide guidance in assessing general damages, they should not be used as a meticulous examination to fix compensation amounts, nor should they dominate the inquiry to become a fetter on the court's discretion. The court emphasized that the process of comparison with comparable cases should be used in a general way to assist the court in arriving at an award that is not substantially out of general accord with previous awards in broadly similar cases.

This case reinforces the constitutional obligations of police officers to respect fundamental rights entrenched in the Bill of Rights, particularly the rights to freedom and security of the person and to be free from violence, torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (section 12 of the Constitution). It emphasizes that in a democratic South Africa, violent responses to student protests should be a remnant of the past, and that police must promote tolerance, constructive engagement and conflict management. The case also demonstrates the application of single witness cautionary rules in civil proceedings and the court's approach to assessing credibility through the three-pronged analysis of credibility, reliability and probabilities established in Stellenbosch Farmers' Winery.